What's always missing from stories like this is how the crooks get the money out. Considering that all Western governments have achieved total surveillance on our banking and made it impossible to have anonymous bank accounts, I'd like to see a detailed analysis about why they can't follow the money and see who gets it.

Every scenario I can think of seems like it should be either traceable or actionable.

Scenario 1: The crooks cashed out the victim's $270,000 at ATMs. That means they set up 270 fraudulent bank accounts, each tied to a separate ATM card, and each with a withdrawal limit of $1000. There should be a cornucopia of leads to follow. It's a major hassle to set up a bank account. You need an address at which to receive each one of those 270 ATM cards. Did the bank(s) send 270 cards to one single mailing address? Were these online accounts or did the crooks visit each bank with fake IDs? What did the surveillance cameras at the ATMs show? If they hired duped people to cash out at the ATMs, can't the police catch at least one of those persons and continue following the money?

Scenario 2: The crooks create one master British bank account into which the stolen money is funneled (say $1,000,000) and then they transfer the money to overseas to Third World Bank. Why doesn't the British bank (or the British government) demand that the $1,000,000 be returned by Third World Bank? It's now the Third World country's job to track down the crooks if they want to. If they won't return the funds, they get blacklisted by the British banking system.

Perhaps there are very good answers about why and how the crooks can get away with it but it seems so implausible when money has been so traceable for the last 20 or 30 years (except for certain cryptocurrencies but that's recent).